If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   FBI did a record # of firearms background checks. Your fears about the Government coming to take your guns away are true, citizen. RUN AND HIDE. It's a CONSPIRACY. I shouldn't mock gun nuts, should I?   (politico.com) divider line 80
    More: Interesting, FBI, background checks, firearms, conspiracy  
•       •       •

675 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Jan 2013 at 10:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-03 08:32:53 AM
It's not the gun owners that passed a background check that you should be worried about.
 
2013-01-03 09:58:17 AM

basemetal: It's not the gun owners that passed a background check that you should be worried about.


Depends on the background check, I suppose.  How many of these check into mental health?
 
2013-01-03 09:59:16 AM

I_C_Weener: basemetal: It's not the gun owners that passed a background check that you should be worried about.

Depends on the background check, I suppose.  How many of these check into mental health?


Maybe he was referring to straw purchases and how those guns end up in the hands of those who wouldn't pass a background check.
 
2013-01-03 10:29:19 AM

I_C_Weener: basemetal: It's not the gun owners that passed a background check that you should be worried about.

Depends on the background check, I suppose.  How many of these check into mental health?


Mental health is part of the background check. The problem is we suck at adding the crazies to the NICS database.

http://www.demandaplan.org/FatalGaps
 
2013-01-03 10:33:23 AM

sammyk: I_C_Weener: basemetal: It's not the gun owners that passed a background check that you should be worried about.

Depends on the background check, I suppose.  How many of these check into mental health?

Mental health is part of the background check. The problem is we suck at adding the crazies to the NICS database.

http://www.demandaplan.org/FatalGaps


I didn't know that.  Thanks
 
2013-01-03 10:58:34 AM

basemetal: It's not the gun owners that passed a background check that you should be worried about.


Why? One passed the guns to her mentally ill son in CT and he shot up an elementary school.
 
2013-01-03 10:59:20 AM
Oooh! I NEVER get in early to the gun threads! Hooray!

*AHUM*

As a person that can actually hit what I am aiming at, I have no problem with severe restrictions being placed on all automatic weapons. If you need anything faster than a bolt-action rifle or a pump shotgun to hit what you are trying to kill, you suck at guns and don't deserve to use them.

:D
 
2013-01-03 11:00:04 AM
Pretty sure you could do a foreground check on some of these fuccos and sense there may be something off.
 
2013-01-03 11:00:37 AM
I keep asking.  All I want to know is, why is my constitutional right to carry a bazooka onto a 747 denied me?  How does the constitution give the "firearms" pantywaists their right to carry pistols into bars, but my constitutional right--my. constitutional. right.--to carry a bazooka onto a 747 is denied me?

How long must this constitutional outrage continue?
 
2013-01-03 11:00:52 AM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: As a person that can actually hit what I am aiming at, I have no problem with severe restrictions being placed on all automatic weapons. If you need anything faster than a bolt-action rifle or a pump shotgun to hit what you are trying to kill, you suck at guns and don't deserve to use them.


I'm stealing that the next time I have to deal with a gun nut ^_^
 
2013-01-03 11:00:55 AM
F*CK - my big troll and I f*ck it all up.

*ahum*

SEMI-automatic weapons. I have no problem with restrictions on SEMI-automatic weapons, because I can hit what I'm aiming at.


Should have had a goddamn cup of coffee before I tried to pull off a decent troll. I hang my head in shame.
 
2013-01-03 11:01:38 AM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Oooh! I NEVER get in early to the gun threads! Hooray!

*AHUM*

As a person that can actually hit what I am aiming at, I have no problem with severe restrictions being placed on all automatic weapons. If you need anything faster than a bolt-action rifle or a pump shotgun to hit what you are trying to kill, you suck at guns and don't deserve to use them.

:D


GINO!!! (Gun-owner In Name Only)
 
2013-01-03 11:02:22 AM

somedude210: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: As a person that can actually hit what I am aiming at, I have no problem with severe restrictions being placed on all automatic weapons. If you need anything faster than a bolt-action rifle or a pump shotgun to hit what you are trying to kill, you suck at guns and don't deserve to use them.

I'm stealing that the next time I have to deal with a gun nut ^_^


Oh feel free. It's got a dash of ITG thrown in with some "I clearly like guns because I use them so my opinion on the subject is solid."

Plus, it questions the size of their gun dick, which is totally cool as well.

But make sure you say "semi-automatic," it's an important distinction.
 
2013-01-03 11:05:18 AM

I_C_Weener: basemetal: It's not the gun owners that passed a background check that you should be worried about.

Depends on the background check, I suppose.  How many of these check into mental health?


All of them, though actually reporting relevant mental disorders to the system is haphazardly done at best.
 
2013-01-03 11:05:38 AM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: somedude210: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: As a person that can actually hit what I am aiming at, I have no problem with severe restrictions being placed on all automatic weapons. If you need anything faster than a bolt-action rifle or a pump shotgun to hit what you are trying to kill, you suck at guns and don't deserve to use them.

I'm stealing that the next time I have to deal with a gun nut ^_^

Oh feel free. It's got a dash of ITG thrown in with some "I clearly like guns because I use them so my opinion on the subject is solid."

Plus, it questions the size of their gun dick, which is totally cool as well.

But make sure you say "semi-automatic," it's an important distinction.


"Automatic" is trollier and technically correct - semi and full auto are just variations on an automatic action.

If you want to go full troll, argue that we should ban full auto clips.
 
2013-01-03 11:08:15 AM
Why am I not allowed to carry my defensive hand grenades around with me concealed? I'm a law abiding citizen who has never killed or wounded anyone with a hand grenade. When the bad guys come, I will pull the pin and stick it in their pockets when they aren't looking.

Stop trying to take my rights away from me.
 
2013-01-03 11:11:39 AM
I think gun-nuts deserve to be mocked. Only a paranoid, pants-pissing coward thinks they need guns to keep their homes/families safe in the United States.
 
2013-01-03 11:13:08 AM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Oooh! I NEVER get in early to the gun threads! Hooray!

*AHUM*

As a person that can actually hit what I am aiming at, I have no problem with severe restrictions being placed on all automatic weapons. If you need anything faster than a bolt-action rifle or a pump shotgun to hit what you are trying to kill, you suck at guns and don't deserve to use them.

:D


I have been told that the wild hog problems in Texas are why we need unfettered access to assault weapons.
 
2013-01-03 11:13:33 AM

justtray: Why am I not allowed to carry my defensive hand grenades around with me concealed? I'm a law abiding citizen who has never killed or wounded anyone with a hand grenade. When the bad guys come, I will pull the pin and stick it in their pockets when they aren't looking.

Stop trying to take my rights away from me.


I'd address the in greater detail, but I'm whacking down a six-pack and trying to tweet and the traffic is just stop and go.

Problem? I have yet to injure or kill anyone.
 
2013-01-03 11:14:25 AM
Also, gun control could never work in this country. There's too many guns, therefore we're nothing like every other country in the world that has lowered gun crime with gun control and also we shouldn't even try since it will clearly not work.

Furthermore, every person in the country should be armed at all times, because then you're immune to bullets and criminals always know who is armed and avoid them, except when they target them to steal their guns.
 
2013-01-03 11:16:27 AM
When the mental image most sane people get of a pro-gun nut looks something like this...

www.stupidhumans.org

loftandlost.files.wordpress.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

...perhaps it's time to redesign your public relations campaign.
 
2013-01-03 11:18:27 AM

sprawl15: "Automatic" is trollier and technically correct - semi and full auto are just variations on an automatic action.

If you want to go full troll, argue that we should ban full auto clips.


The sick thing is that I've only fired a semi-automatic AR-15 once, and it was at a paper target. It was fun, but unwieldy. It didn't feel as good as the kind of rifle I'm used to. I also used a semi-auto 9mm pistol at a gun range once. Those things are useless beyond a few yards.

The only guns I've actually used to hunt have been bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns. And, since I am a very good shot, I haven't really needed anything faster. So what I said was true, for me at least.
 
2013-01-03 11:18:32 AM

lexslamman: I think gun-nuts deserve to be mocked. Only a paranoid, pants-pissing coward thinks they need guns to keep their homes/families safe in the United States.


I don't think there is anything wrong with having a hand gun or two in the house for home protection and wanting/having that doesn't make you a pants-pissing coward. The gun nuts that look at any kind of restrictions on gun ownership as the beginning of the disarming of society as a prelude to the re-education camps or whatever are the ones that need to be mocked.

/don't own a gun, but have considered it many times
 
2013-01-03 11:20:34 AM

theknuckler_33: lexslamman: I think gun-nuts deserve to be mocked. Only a paranoid, pants-pissing coward thinks they need guns to keep their homes/families safe in the United States.

I don't think there is anything wrong with having a hand gun or two in the house for home protection and wanting/having that doesn't make you a pants-pissing coward. The gun nuts that look at any kind of restrictions on gun ownership as the beginning of the disarming of society as a prelude to the re-education camps or whatever are the ones that need to be mocked.

/don't own a gun, but have considered it many times


There is a story on Fark right now where a gun was used to stop a crime of passion...naked dog wrestling.
 
2013-01-03 11:20:48 AM
I think gun-grabbers deserve to be mocked. Only a paranoid, pants-pissing coward thinks they need to forcibly disarm their neighbors to feel safe in the United States.
 
2013-01-03 11:23:15 AM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Oooh! I NEVER get in early to the gun threads! Hooray!

*AHUM*

As a person that can actually hit what I am aiming at, I have no problem with severe restrictions being placed on all automatic weapons. If you need anything faster than a bolt-action rifle or a pump shotgun to hit what you are trying to kill, you suck at guns and don't deserve to use them.

:D


So true. During elk season(s), if I hear BANG!, good chance someone bagged an elk. If I hear, BANG, BANG,BANG,BANG, the elk is walking free.
 
2013-01-03 11:23:30 AM

zappaisfrank: When the mental image most sane people get of a pro-gun nut looks something like this...

[www.stupidhumans.org image 570x376]

[loftandlost.files.wordpress.com image 503x327]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 477x316]

...perhaps it's time to redesign your public relations campaign.


Damn that L-39 is sexy as hell. You used to be able to buy them out of the Popular Mechanics classifieds for like 100$.
 
2013-01-03 11:24:31 AM

theknuckler_33: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Oooh! I NEVER get in early to the gun threads! Hooray!

*AHUM*

As a person that can actually hit what I am aiming at, I have no problem with severe restrictions being placed on all automatic weapons. If you need anything faster than a bolt-action rifle or a pump shotgun to hit what you are trying to kill, you suck at guns and don't deserve to use them.

:D

I have been told that the wild hog problems in Texas are why we need unfettered access to assault weapons.


I loved that thread so much. But my two cents is you don't need anything scarier than a 30-30 or a .357 revolver to kill a feral hog. But you do have to kill them, little f*ckers wreck everything.
 
2013-01-03 11:26:41 AM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: theknuckler_33: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Oooh! I NEVER get in early to the gun threads! Hooray!

*AHUM*

As a person that can actually hit what I am aiming at, I have no problem with severe restrictions being placed on all automatic weapons. If you need anything faster than a bolt-action rifle or a pump shotgun to hit what you are trying to kill, you suck at guns and don't deserve to use them.

:D

I have been told that the wild hog problems in Texas are why we need unfettered access to assault weapons.

I loved that thread so much. But my two cents is you don't need anything scarier than a 30-30 or a .357 revolver to kill a feral hog. But you do have to kill them, little f*ckers wreck everything.


a 30-30 is more powerful than a .223.

Why do you support the proliferation weapons in lethal calibers?
 
2013-01-03 11:27:16 AM

Holocaust Agnostic: I think gun-grabbers deserve to be mocked. Only a paranoid, pants-pissing coward thinks they need to forcibly disarm their neighbors to feel safe in the United States.


I think gun lovers who think that any step towards limiting the types of guns any random idiot can own is the start of a slippery slope to disarm the populace and take it over deserve to be mocked. Only a paranoid, pants-pissing coward thinks that someone who wants military style semi-automatic weapons banned wants ALL firearms banned.

Get a grip, Cletus.
 
2013-01-03 11:29:39 AM

zappaisfrank: Holocaust Agnostic: I think gun-grabbers deserve to be mocked. Only a paranoid, pants-pissing coward thinks they need to forcibly disarm their neighbors to feel safe in the United States.

I think gun lovers who think that any step towards limiting the types of guns any random idiot can own is the start of a slippery slope to disarm the populace and take it over deserve to be mocked. Only a paranoid, pants-pissing coward thinks that someone who wants military style semi-automatic weapons banned wants ALL firearms banned.

Get a grip, Cletus.


What specific characteristics designate a firearm as "military style"?
 
2013-01-03 11:29:43 AM

Giltric: a 30-30 is more powerful than a .223.

Why do you support the proliferation weapons in lethal calibers?


It's not the caliber that concerns me. It's the speed and capacity of the weapon. But I mostly like large caliber bullets because it means the one bullet I do fire is guaranteed to kill its intended target. So I can take my sweet time reloading the weapon. Because I'm not in a hurry.
 
2013-01-03 11:30:26 AM

Giltric: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: theknuckler_33: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Oooh! I NEVER get in early to the gun threads! Hooray!

*AHUM*

As a person that can actually hit what I am aiming at, I have no problem with severe restrictions being placed on all automatic weapons. If you need anything faster than a bolt-action rifle or a pump shotgun to hit what you are trying to kill, you suck at guns and don't deserve to use them.

:D

I have been told that the wild hog problems in Texas are why we need unfettered access to assault weapons.

I loved that thread so much. But my two cents is you don't need anything scarier than a 30-30 or a .357 revolver to kill a feral hog. But you do have to kill them, little f*ckers wreck everything.

a 30-30 is more powerful than a .223.

Why do you support the proliferation weapons in lethal calibers?


More clearly:

i.imgur.com

.223, 30-30, .308 Winchester.
 
2013-01-03 11:32:06 AM

Holocaust Agnostic: I think gun-grabbers deserve to be mocked. Only a paranoid, pants-pissing coward thinks they need to forcibly disarm their neighbors to feel safe in the United States.


I'm going to buy a gun today, because your posts have clearly shown owning a gun does away with one's persecution complex and paranoia.


LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU! BOOGEYMAN!!!
 
2013-01-03 11:34:13 AM

Dimensio: zappaisfrank: Holocaust Agnostic: I think gun-grabbers deserve to be mocked. Only a paranoid, pants-pissing coward thinks they need to forcibly disarm their neighbors to feel safe in the United States.

I think gun lovers who think that any step towards limiting the types of guns any random idiot can own is the start of a slippery slope to disarm the populace and take it over deserve to be mocked. Only a paranoid, pants-pissing coward thinks that someone who wants military style semi-automatic weapons banned wants ALL firearms banned.

Get a grip, Cletus.

What specific characteristics designate a firearm as "military style"?


If you sing "Heeeeyyyyy sexy lady" while holding it, the firearm is Gangnam style.  So, for military style, I suspect it would be something by John Phillip Sousa.
 
2013-01-03 11:35:43 AM

Dimensio: What specific characteristics designate a firearm as "military style"?


Do you ask because you do not believe there is such a thing? That military style weapons do not exist?
 
2013-01-03 11:36:13 AM

EyeballKid: Holocaust Agnostic: I think gun-grabbers deserve to be mocked. Only a paranoid, pants-pissing coward thinks they need to forcibly disarm their neighbors to feel safe in the United States.

I'm going to buy a gun today, because your posts have clearly shown owning a gun does away with one's persecution complex and paranoia.


LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU! BOOGEYMAN!!!


Eh? I didn't say anything about owning guns curing you. Just that banning them might be a symptom.

/Ive never owned any guns so I wouldn't know what it feels like.
 
2013-01-03 11:36:18 AM

Dimensio: zappaisfrank: Holocaust Agnostic: I think gun-grabbers deserve to be mocked. Only a paranoid, pants-pissing coward thinks they need to forcibly disarm their neighbors to feel safe in the United States.

I think gun lovers who think that any step towards limiting the types of guns any random idiot can own is the start of a slippery slope to disarm the populace and take it over deserve to be mocked. Only a paranoid, pants-pissing coward thinks that someone who wants military style semi-automatic weapons banned wants ALL firearms banned.

Get a grip, Cletus.

What specific characteristics designate a firearm as "military style"?


The same characteristics as were spelled out in the original assault weapons ban Bush got paid to let expire. If it were up to me, I'd say hand held weapons that fire more than six shots before reload, rifles that fire more than ten shots before reload gotta go. If you can't kill someone or something with that amount of ammo, you need more practice.
 
2013-01-03 11:37:14 AM

Holocaust Agnostic: I think gun-grabbers deserve to be mocked.


The term "gun-grabbers" plays into the stereotype that gun enthusiasts both see their weapon as an extension of their phallus AND suffer from more than a little bit of homophobia.

Nobody wants to touch, much less cut off, your little, flacid derringer buddy.
 
2013-01-03 11:40:24 AM

zappaisfrank: he same characteristics as were spelled out in the original assault weapons ban Bush got paid to let expire.


President Bush expressed intent to sign an extension of the "assault weapons ban" had it passed Congress. The extension failed to pass Congress. Your claim that President Bush was "paid" to allow a law to expire, when in fact he had no control over the law's expiration, is a lie.

The law prohibited the presence of two or more features that did not actually affect function on rifles, such as pistol grips and collapsible stocks. Any individual who claims that banning rifles that feature a pistol grip and a collapsible stock will reduce rates of violent crime is either dishonest or stupid.

If it were up to me, I'd say hand held weapons that fire more than six shots before reload, rifles that fire more than ten shots before reload gotta go.

Your proposal would ban all semi-automatic firearms fed from detachable magazines, which is unreasonable.
 
2013-01-03 11:41:02 AM

LasersHurt: Dimensio: What specific characteristics designate a firearm as "military style"?

Do you ask because you do not believe there is such a thing? That military style weapons do not exist?


I ask because I have been provided with no consistent, constant definition.
 
2013-01-03 11:42:52 AM

Dimensio: Your proposal would ban all semi-automatic firearms fed from detachable magazines, which is unreasonable.


Why is that unreasonable? How many bullets do you typically need to hit what you're aiming at?
 
2013-01-03 11:44:29 AM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: somedude210: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: As a person that can actually hit what I am aiming at, I have no problem with severe restrictions being placed on all automatic weapons. If you need anything faster than a bolt-action rifle or a pump shotgun to hit what you are trying to kill, you suck at guns and don't deserve to use them.

I'm stealing that the next time I have to deal with a gun nut ^_^

Oh feel free. It's got a dash of ITG thrown in with some "I clearly like guns because I use them so my opinion on the subject is solid."

Plus, it questions the size of their gun dick, which is totally cool as well.

But make sure you say "semi-automatic," it's an important distinction.


Will do ^_^
 
2013-01-03 11:44:33 AM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Dimensio: Your proposal would ban all semi-automatic firearms fed from detachable magazines, which is unreasonable.

Why is that unreasonable? How many bullets do you typically need to hit what you're aiming at?


Aren't all magazines detachable?
 
2013-01-03 11:46:01 AM

Blathering Idjut: Holocaust Agnostic: I think gun-grabbers deserve to be mocked.

The term "gun-grabbers" plays into the stereotype that gun enthusiasts both see their weapon as an extension of their phallus AND suffer from more than a little bit of homophobia.

Nobody wants to touch, much less cut off, your little, flacid derringer buddy.


You certainly have put a lot more thought into the whole "lulz, gunz=peniz xDD" thing than most.


Tell me more, Freud.
 
2013-01-03 11:46:02 AM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Dimensio: Your proposal would ban all semi-automatic firearms fed from detachable magazines, which is unreasonable.

Why is that unreasonable?


Perhaps zappaisfrank will be able to explain why the prohibition that he advocates is reasonable.


How many bullets do you typically need to hit what you're aiming at?

One.
 
2013-01-03 11:48:14 AM

Dimensio: zappaisfrank:

If it were up to me, I'd say hand held weapons that fire more than six shots before reload, rifles that fire more than ten shots before reload gotta go.

Your proposal would ban all semi-automatic firearms fed from detachable magazines, which is unreasonable.


I disagree. I'm tired of having to live in a world where the frequent civilian massacre is the price we as a society have to pay so a handful of people don't have to give up their toys.
 
2013-01-03 11:48:25 AM

Dimensio: LasersHurt: Dimensio: What specific characteristics designate a firearm as "military style"?

Do you ask because you do not believe there is such a thing? That military style weapons do not exist?

I ask because I have been provided with no consistent, constant definition.


Does this somehow mean that there is not one? Does this change the fact that people might want to restrict these weapons, and helping produce a better definition would serve this end well?
 
2013-01-03 11:50:49 AM

Dimensio: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Dimensio: Your proposal would ban all semi-automatic firearms fed from detachable magazines, which is unreasonable.

Why is that unreasonable?

Perhaps zappaisfrank will be able to explain why the prohibition that he advocates is reasonable.


How many bullets do you typically need to hit what you're aiming at?

One.


Thanks for proving my point. If you can't get done what you need to get done with a six shot pistol, then you need more practice.

It would appear the burden of validation is on you, fella. You say you only need one bullet to hit what you are aiming at, which totally disarms (pun intended) your contention that you need semi-automatics with a magazine feed.
 
2013-01-03 11:52:36 AM

LasersHurt: Does this somehow mean that there is not one?


There really isn't a definition of what is a "military style" firearm beyond a definition that relies entirely on cosmetics. The next step in terms of a meaningful reduction of legally available firepower would be to ban semi-automatics with no grandfather clause, which is both politically and practically impossible.

There's far more leeway in regulation in terms of licensing, background checks, etc., in both practical and political terms if you are looking for non-cosmetic regulation.
 
Displayed 50 of 80 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report